Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Maybe people want to be able to do the things they can't. "I am not an artist, musician or movie maker, but with AI, I can be", three things people love but most can't or don't do. This makes it possible to dilute art with AI. How many people will know the difference?
I wonder if you will be able to use your own image from uploaded photographs?
….… ‘yes darling, here’s some footage of me scoring the winning goal for Glasgow Rangers against Barcelona in the European Cup Final….. another sausage’?😍
These capabilities are just following a path researchers are on as they pursue the ultimate goal, which is "artificial general intelligence" (aka "strong A.I."). Things are going to start getting really weird as systems start to become more like people and less like machines.
A little more information behind-the-scenes about what is happening with the new Open AI model:
Firefly Season 2
Just imagine if you could really order up another season of any series. It should theoretically be possible at some point.
You can finetune existing ML models, make derivative ones and merge them together. This is why there are hundreds of Stable Diffusion models. (Lora are also like model layers you can apply and blend with them at prompting). In terms of image models when a base raw model is released the quality goes up massively over time as people finetune and merge finetune models together. But yes, the biggest leaps happen with newly trained models. As for video they are so huge and expensive to train that finetunes are not common but that is more of an impracticality of video scope than a technical limitation of ML models in general.
Hollywood is pretty bad at making sequels - what makes you think Ai will be any better?
Everyone living in their own virtual world, sandboxed from everyone else, we’re getting there, home isn’t where the heart is, it’s just a button.
When the horseshoe starts to close;
And the Records Department, after all, was itself only a single branch of the Ministry of Truth, whose primary job was not to reconstruct the past but to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels --with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child’s spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary. And the Ministry had not only to supply the multifarious needs of the party, but also to repeat the whole operation at a lower level for the benefit of the proletariat. There was a whole chain of separate departmentsdealing with proletarian literature, music, drama, and entertainment generally. Here were produced rubbishy newspapers containing almost nothing except sport, crime and astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes, films oozing with sex, and sentimental songs which were composed entirely by mechanical means on a special kind of kaleidoscope known as a versificator. There was even a whole sub-section --Pornosec, it was called in Newspeak -- engaged in producing the lowest kind of pornography, which was sent out in sealed packets and which no Party member, other than those who worked on it, was permitted to look at.
Absolutely. I've played with image generators a lot in the past months and I'm convinced that they can already create images that are considered good artwork by many. And isn't that one of the more important aspects of art?
Everyone is living in their own virtual world anyway. Remember when TV and movies meant the end of books? That didn't happen. Remember when photography meant the end of painting? That didn't happen either.
Not about life?! Tell me then what name Tokyo represents to you. Or, when you need to make a meaningful prompt, you still need to use the name of the artist. Did you ask yourself why?
Anyhow, “art is in the eye of the beholder”, as they used to say. I won't, and I can’t alter your personal preference as to what is or isn’t art.
For centuries, artists learned from other artists but developed their own style and unique opus. They move the art forward, not backwards. Mediums and formats are only techniques, sort of disciplines, we humans accept that as global convention. Simply to send the message, our emotions, and stories of life.
Maybe generic Frankenstein-like collages of hunderds metamorphed styles became popular for some time, but it isn’t art and never will be. 😇
It's bad because ”AI" is already doing it, haha! 😂
That's why I said "one aspect", not art as the whole idea.
Of course.
I'd like to invite you to do the same: Spend your time with different recent image generators, try many different prompts and watch what the different engines have to offer.
AI is no different. It learns from different artists, somehow finds a few typical features for that artist and creates new variations of it. It will even learn how one artist has interpreted the work of other artists in his own sense. I don't think think that there can be a clear distinction looking at the end result. The difference is only in the process, and don't get me wrong, I love it when humans create art, no doubt about that!
It's not as simple as that. Try it for yourself.
My heart is with you—heck, I agree that art is about life, and I do hope this is true. Likely those practitioners in serious art can tell (hopefully!) the difference between art created by great artists and lifeless art created by machine learning. Unfortunately, I don't think regular Joe can tell the difference or care to. You listen to music today: great music in every genres—folk, electronica, even those from academics—can be found, but also even more terrible music from academics, mainstream, or indie groups, and I feel like the popularity doesn't follow the quality of music.
Except there’s nothing to suggest that LLMs or any kind of ML is generalisable and a a lot of evidence that they’re already running into the limits of this approach - poor short term memory which is astronomically hard to improve, zero abductive inference ability, and they’re basically out of training data having already ingested every word / image / piece of audio ever created.
In the literature there seems to be a big divide between 1) the people who run large companies burning through capital trying to make sellable products, 2) the commentariat who don’t really understand the science saying it’ll put us all out of work, and 3) academics in AI who say this neat and everything but it’s just a novel (and massively power and compute intensive) approach to creating expert systems and isn’t “intelligent” in any meaningful way.
Don’t get me wrong I think it’s super cool that alpha fold literally solved the protein folding problem and I know a few people who make generative art and it’s great that it’s enabling them, but the actual art comes from their prompts, their imagination, etc. the generative part is just automation.
It looks like you are reasoning and generalizing on the wrong terms. Mimicry will always be mimicry. Artificial leather jackets will always be just plastic that wants to be leather.
You are an intelligent person, just look at the difference between a theoretically artificial neuron and a real human one. ;)
Human neuron:
Artificial neuron:
Just because human neurons are an extremely inefficient (and thus complex) implementation of one doesn't mean that they're better 😉
Building a bigger, faster machine doesn’t mean you’ll create a conscious organic replication of a human being, you’ll just get a bigger, faster machine. We are unique by nature, beyond mere duplication.
As nobody knows what consciousness is or how it arises, it's also impossible to say if we will be able to replicate it, or indeed might already have.
Look more closely at the diagram! Human neurones have a Node of Ranvier! Not even EG Nodes has a node of Ranvier. How cool is that?
What about sampling? It’s taking the work from others and “making it into something else”. It’s the most egregious form of art stealing I know of and people have been doing it for years.
What’s the difference? Is it only different because “people are the stealers” instead of “algorithms”?
That's a very good question. A lot of sound libraries are based on commercial stealing already 😉
😂
BTW, I didn't mean to insult the ingenuity of the "human neuron" or CNS in general. What evolution (or for the creationists: the Creator) came up with there is absolutely genius given the available resources (here's some random soup of molecular garbage, make a highly complex system from it!)
It is noticeable though that if a system is designed from the ground up with efficiency and a specific goal in mind, with a proper plan, it turns out to be far more elegant and efficient apparently (look at electric motors, which are far, far simpler and more power dense than human muscle)
Or if we are being fooled is the other possibility.
It is the industrialized scale of it that freaks people out. Masses of people put their personal work out into the world with the positive intent of partaking in the collaborative human endeavour only to have their intentions harvested as data and have their livelihoods threatened/eliminated. As a creative tool? Yah it is pretty amazing.
So…exactly like sampling? 😂
I wouldn't say sampling is of an industrialized scale.
🥇